Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Midwifery, Evidence‑Based Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

2 Department of Reproductive Health, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences

3 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran


INTRODUCTION: Midwifery screening is one of the duties of midwives according to national
guidelines. It is possible to increase midwives’ knowledge and practice through effective education.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of standardized patient‑based education and feedback
lecture on midwives’ knowledge and practice in screening counseling for fetal malformations.
METHODS: This quasi‑experimental, two‑group study (standardized patient‑based training and
feedback lecture) was performed on 67 midwives (licensed by the office) in Mashhad in 2018.
Midwives’ knowledge and practice before and 2 weeks after training (a 4‑h training program)
were assessed by the Objective Structured Clinical Examination and a questionnaire. The data
were analyzed by the SPSS software version 16 using Mann–Whitney, Chi‑square, Wilcoxon and
independent t‑test while P < 0.05 considered as a significant level.
RESULTS: Before intervention, the total score of knowledge and practice showed no statistically
significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). After intervention, knowledge score
in feedback lecture group was statistically significantly higher than that of standard patient
group (P < 0.001). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in performance scores
between the two groups after intervention (P = 0.761).
CONCLUSION: Both educational methods can increase midwives’ knowledge and practice in fetal
screening counseling. However, in raising midwives’ awareness, feedback lecture group was more
effective than standard patient group.


  1. Soori H. Textbook of public health T, ministry of health and
    medical education for research and technology. Iran J Med Educ
    2. Summers AM, Langlois S, Wyatt P, Wilson RD, Allen V, Blight C,
    et al. Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidy. J Obstetr Gynaecol
    Canada 2007;29:146‑61.
  2. 27. Ranjbar SF, Mousavi Nasab M. Comparison of the effect of two
    traditional and integrated teaching methods on the level of
    learning of drug ability by the first year students of Fatemeh
    Nursing School of Shiraz University of medical sciences. Iran J
    Med Educ 2003;3(1):35‑43
    28. Rashidi Fakari FK, Mazloom SR, Khadivzadeh T, Tara M,
    Akhlaghi F. Comparing the effect of traditional, web based and
    simulation training on midwifery students’ clinical competence
    in postpartum hemorrhage management. J Mazandaran Univer
    Med Sci 2015;25:65‑77.
    29. Ten Eyck RP, Tews M, Ballester JM. Improved medical student
    satisfaction and test performance with a simulation‑based
    emergency medicine curriculum: A randomized controlled trial.
    Ann Emerg Med 2009;54:684‑91. 
    3. Styles Screening and Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities. Ministry
    of Health and Medical Education; 2011. Available from: http//
    www.googlecom/gws/rd/ss. [Last accessed on 2014 Oct 21].
    4. Cunigham GF, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, RouseDJ, Spong CY. Williams
    obstetrics 25thed. In: Golban Medical. Tehran: Ghazi Jahani
    Publisher; 2018.
    5. Lou S, Petersen OB, Jørgensen FS, Lund ICB, Kjaergaard S;
    Danish Cytogenetic Central Registry Study Group, et al. National
    screening guidelines and developments in prenatal diagnoses and
    live births of Down syndrome in 1973‑2016 in Denmark. Acta
    Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:195‑203.
    6. Rabiee M, Jouhari Z, Pirasteh A. Knowledge of prenatal
    screening, down syndrome, amniocentesis, and related factors
    among Iranian pregnant women: A cross‑sectional study. Int J
    Community Based Nurs Midwifery 2019;7:150‑60.
    7. SevenM, Akyüz A, Eroglu K, Daack‑Hirsch S, Skirton H. Women’s
    knowledge and use of prenatal screening tests. J Clin Nurs
    8. Kosec V, Zec I, Tislarić‑Medenjak D, Kuna K, Simundić AM,
    Lajtman‑Krizaić M, et al. Pregnant women’s knowledge
    and attitudes to prenatal screening for fetal chromosomal
    abnormalities: Croatian multicentric survey. Coll Antropol
    9. Spencer K. Screening for Down syndrome. Scand J Clin Lab Invest
    Suppl 2014;244:41‑7.
    10. Gourounti K, Sandall J. Do pregnant women in Greece make
    informed choices about antenatal screening for Down’s syndrome?
    A questionnaire survey. Midwifery 2008;24:153‑62.
    11. Kordi M, Riyazi S, Lotfalizade M, Shakeri MT, Suny HJ.
    A comparison of face to face and group education on informed
    choice and decisional conflict of pregnant women about screening
    tests of fetal abnormalities. J Educ Health Promot 2018;7:6.
    12. Foster J, Heath A. Midwifery and the development of
    nursing capacity in the Dominican Republic: Caring, clinical
    competence, and case management. J Midwifery Womens Health
    13. Farshbaf Khalili A, Shahnazi M, Hajizadeh K, Shekari Khaniani M.
    Down syndrome screening methods in Iranian pregnant women.
    J Caring Sci 2012;1:145‑51.
    14. Mohamadirizi S, Kohan S, Shafei F, Mohamadirizi S. The
    relationship between clinical competence and clinical
    self‑efficacy among nursing and Midwifery students. Int J Pediatr
    15. Saif A. Modern Educational Psychology: Psychology of Learning
    and Instruction Book. Tehran, Iran: Doran Pub; 2015. p. 728.
    16. Rutherford‑Hemming T, Alfes CM, Breymier TL. A systematic
    review of the use of standardized patients as a simulation
    modality in nursing education. Nurs Educ Perspect 2019;40:84‑90.
    17. Reyhan F, Mete A, Celik N. Evaluating the views of midwifery
    students about simulation education. Int J Caring Sci
    18. Jeffries PR, Swoboda S, Akintade B. Teaching and learning using
    simulations. In: Teaching in Nursing: A Guide for Faculty. St
    Louis (MO):Elsevier2016. p. 304‑23.
    19. Zhang S, Soreide KK, Kelling SE, Bostwick JR. Quality assurance
    processes for standardized patient programs. Curr Pharm Teach
    Learn 2018;10:523‑8.
    20. Speeney N, Kameg KM, Cline T, Szpak JL, Bagwell B. Impact
    of a standardized patient simulation on undergraduate nursing
    student knowledge and perceived competency of the care of
    a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia. Arch Psychiatr Nurs
    21. Afrasiabifar A, Najafi Doulatabad S, Mosavi A. Comparing the
    effect of feedback lecture and conventional lecture on the students’
    learning and satisfaction to teach intensive nursing cares. J Nurs
    Educ 2014;3:69‑78.
    22. Styles Screening and Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities. Ministry
    of Health and Medical Education. Available from: http//www.
    googlecom/gws/rd/ss. [Last accessed on Oct21 2018.
    23. Martin L, Hutton EK, Spelten ER, Gitsels‑van der Wal JT, van
    Dulmen S. Midwives’ views on appropriate antenatal counselling
    for congenital anomaly tests: do they match clients’ preferences?
    Midwifery 2014;30:600‑9.
    24. Tabatabaeian MK, Dadgar S, Esmaily H, Khadivzadeh T.
    Comparison of the effects of simulation‑based training,
    compilation training, and lectures on the cognitive skills of
    midwives in the management of preeclampsia and eclampsia.
    Iran J Obstetr Gynecol Infertil 2018;21:30‑9.
    25. Naderi AB, Alirezaee N, Ghorbanzade K. Comparison of the Effect
    of two Competency‑based and Traditional Teaching Methods
    on Active Learning of Cognitive and Clinical Skills of Nursing
    Students in ICU Ward; 2012.
    26. Reynolds AA, Pereira‑Cavaleiro A, Ferreira‑Bastos L. Simulation
    for teaching normal delivery and shoulder dystocia to midwives
    in training. Educr Health 2010;23:405.